Safety and Health at Work

Occupational Safety and Health Research Institute, Korea Occupational Safety and Health Agency (산업안전보건연구원)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Risk Rating System for Noise-induced Hearing Loss in Korean Manufacturing Sites Based on the 2009 Survey on Work Environments

  • Kim, Young-Sun (Occupational Safety and Health Research Institute, Koera Occupational Safety and Health Agency) ;
  • Cho, Youn-Ho (Occupational Safety and Health Research Institute, Koera Occupational Safety and Health Agency) ;
  • Kwon, Oh-Jun (Occupational Safety and Health Research Institute, Koera Occupational Safety and Health Agency) ;
  • Choi, Seong-Weon (Occupational Safety and Health Research Institute, Koera Occupational Safety and Health Agency) ;
  • Rhee, Kyung-Yong (Occupational Safety and Health Research Institute, Koera Occupational Safety and Health Agency)
  • Received : 2010.12.07
  • Accepted : 2011.09.09
  • Published : 2011.12.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objectives: In Korea, an average of 258 workers claim compensation for their noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) on an annual basis. Indeed, hearing disorder ranks first in the number of diagnoses made by occupational medical check-ups. Against this backdrop, this study analyzed the impact of 19 types of noise-generating machines and equipment on the sound pressure levels in workplaces and NIHL occurrence based on a 2009 national survey on work environments. Methods: Through this analysis, a series of statistical models were built to determine posterior probabilities for each worksite with an aim to present risk ratings for noise levels at work. Results: It was found that air compressors and grinding machines came in first and second, respectively in the number of installed noise-generating machines and equipment. However, there was no direct relationship between workplace noise and NIHL among workers since noise-control equipment and protective gear had been in place. By building a logistic regression model and neural network, statistical models were set to identify the influence of the noise-generating machines and equipment on workplace noise levels and NIHL occurrence. Conclusion: This study offered NIHL prevention measures which are fit for the worksites in each risk grade.

Keywords

References

  1. Dobie RA. Medical-Legal Evaluation of Hearing Loss. 2nd ed. San Diego (CA): Singular Publishing Group; 2001. 393 p.
  2. Thorne PR, Gavin JB. Changing relationships between structure and function in the cochlea during recovery from intense sound exposure. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1985;94:81-6.
  3. Zenz C, Dickerson OB, Horvath EP. Occupational Medicine. 3rd ed. St. Louis (MO): Mosby; 1994.
  4. Hodgkinson L, Prasher D. Effects of industrial solvents on hearing and balance: a review. Noise Health 2006;8:114-33.
  5. Gobba F. Sensory perception: an overlooked target of occupational exposure to metals. Bioinorg Chem Appl 2003:199-214.
  6. Cruickshanks KJ, Klein R, Klein BE, Wiley TL, Nondahl DM, Tweed TS. Cigarette smoking and hearing loss: the epidemiology of hearing loss study. JAMA 1998;279:1715-9. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.279.21.1715
  7. de Moraes Marchiori LL, de Almeida Rego Filho E, Matsuo T. Hypertension as a factor associated with hearing loss. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 2006;72:533-40.
  8. Starck J, Pyykko I, Toppila E, Nieminen O, Pekkarinen J. Factors explaining individual variability in hearing level: Exposure to noise, hearing protection, blood pressure and cholesterol. Sixth US-Finnish Joint Symposium on Occupational Health and Safety, People and Work, Research Report 3. Proceedings of the Sixth FIOH-NIOSH Joint Symposium on Occupational Health and Safety; 1995 Aug 8-10; Espoo, Finland. Helsinki (Finland): Finninsh Institute of Occupational Health; 1995. 199 p.
  9. Lalwani AK, Liu YH, Weitzman M. Secondhand smoke and sensorineural hearing loss in adolescents. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2011;137:655-62. https://doi.org/10.1001/archoto.2011.109
  10. Bainbridge KE, Hoffman HJ, Cowie CC. Diabetes and hearing impairment in the United States: audiometric evidence from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1999 to 2004. Ann Intern Med 2008;149:1-10.
  11. Evans MB, Tonini R, Shope CD, Oghalai JS, Jerger JF, Insull W Jr, Brownell WE. Dyslipidemia and auditory function. Otol Neurotol 2006;27:609-14. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mao.0000226286.19295.34
  12. Ministry of Employment and Labor (KR). The 2009 Survey on Injuries and Illnesses. Gwacheon (Korea): Ministry of Employment and Labor (KR); 2009. 1151 p. Korean.
  13. Sensogut C. Occupational noise in mines and its control-A case study. Polish J Environ Stud 2007;16:939-42.
  14. Sistkova M, Peterka A. The exposure of working environment noise in the agricultural service workplace. Res Agr Eng 2009;55:69-75.
  15. Nathak S, Puranik A, Schut J, Rao MD. Study on noise transmission from an air compressor. Proceedings of Noise-Con 2005; 2005 Oct 17-19; Minneapolis, MN. Washington, DC: Institute of Noise Control Engineering; 2005.
  16. Nelson DI, Nelson RY, Concha-Barrientos M, Fingerhut M. The global burden of occupational noise-induced hearing loss. Am J Ind Med 2005;48:446-58. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajim.20223
  17. Kinsella K, He W; US Census Bureau. An Aging World; 2008. International Population Reports P95/09-1. Washigton, DC: US Government Printing Office; 2009. 191 p.
  18. Rosner B. Fundamentals of Biostatistics. 4th ed. Belmont (CA): Duxbury Press; 1995. 681 p.
  19. Alan A. Categorical Data Analysis. 2nd ed. New York (NY): Wiley-Interscience; 2002.
  20. Hosmer, David W, Lemeshow S. Applied Logistic Regression. 2nd ed. New York (NY): Wiley; 2000. 373 p.
  21. Cheng B, Titterington D. Neural networks: a review from a statistical perspective. Statist Sci 1994;9:2-54. https://doi.org/10.1214/ss/1177010638
  22. Smith M. Neural Nnetworks for Statistical Modeling. Boston (MA): International Thomson Computer Press; 1996. 235 p.
  23. Bigg D, De Ville B, Suen E. A method of choosing multiway pathway partitions for classification and decision trees. J Appl Statist 1991;18:49-62. https://doi.org/10.1080/02664769100000005
  24. Cristianini N, Shawe-Taylor J. An Introduction to Support Vector Machines and Other Kernel-based Learning Methods. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press; 2000. 189 p.
  25. Hu MY, Shanker M, Hung MS. Estimation of posterior probabilities of consumer situational choices with neural network classifiers. Int J Res Mark 1999;16:307-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8116(99)00018-X
  26. Ambergen AW, Schaafsma W. Interval estimates for posterior probabilities in a multivariate normal classification model. J Multivariate Anal 1985;16:432-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/0047-259X(85)90029-6
  27. Chow GC. A comparison of the information and posterior probability criteria for model selection. J Econometrics 1981;16:21-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4076(81)90073-7

Cited by

  1. Associations between dietary quality, noise, and hearing: Data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1999–2002 vol.53, pp.11, 2014, https://doi.org/10.3109/14992027.2014.921340
  2. Study of Personal Hearing Protection Devices Usage in Kashan Carpet Industry Workers vol.5, pp.4, 2016, https://doi.org/10.17795/jhealthscope-35250
  3. Ranking maintenance strategies for sustainable maintenance plan in manufacturing systems using fuzzy axiomatic design principle and fuzzy-TOPSIS vol.28, pp.7, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-01-2017-0007